Shuttle mission's success crucial to US space exploration

Yahoo ^

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The success of next week's space shuttle launch is crucial to the future of US space exploration, more than two years after the Columbia disaster grounded manned flights.

NASA has undertaken major safety changes on its shuttle fleet since the February 2003 crash in which seven astronauts died, but the space agency acknowledges that flying into space will always carry risks.

"Returning the space shuttle safely to flight and resuming flight operation is the first step in the vision for space exploration," NASA administrator Michael Griffin told a congressional committee in late June.

"The risk won't be zero," he cautioned. The Discovery space shuttle is scheduled to blast off July 13.

Despite the uncertainties surrounding the safety of manned flights, President George W. Bush has set out an ambitious agenda for intergalactic exploration.

Bush announced in January 2004 a plan to return to the Moon by 2020 followed by the first manned mission to Mars.

In the short term, the space shuttles are needed to finish construction of the International Space Station.

Research conducted on the ISS and the shuttle flights are tied to future Moon and Mars missions, according to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Thanks to the ISS, "We're learning the answers to basic questions about how to keep humans alive and healthy for longer and longer periods of time in space, and how to improve spacecraft for those trips," said former ISS commander Leroy Chiao.

NASA plans to retire its three remaining space shuttles in 2010, once the ISS is finished, and replace it with a new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicule.

The new shuttle, which has yet to be invented, will have to be able to carry six astronauts to the Moon and later to Mars. It will also need the capacity to dock on the ISS for low Earth orbit missions.

But the implementation of the plan depends on the success of the return to flight of the old shuttles, first launched in 1981.

The 2003 crash and the 1986 Challenger disaster, in which seven astronauts died in an explosion shortly after blast off, has left NASA with three shuttles -- Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour.

"The launch is an absolutely essential step to creating forward momentum for the space program," said John Logsdon, a member of the panel that probed the Columbia shuttle disaster and director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University.

Investigators found that the Columbia crash was caused by damage sustained by the spacecraft after it was hit by chunks of insulating foam that broke off during liftoff.

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board also blamed NASA culture for the disaster, saying the space agency's managers were "as much a cause" of the crash as technical failures.

NASA's prestige took a hit after Columbia caught fire and broke apart over Texas as it re-entered Earth's atmosphere on February 1, 2003, said former astronaut George Nelson, a Western Washington University professor.

"Certainly, during the early sixties and seventies, Nasa was really the symbol of the country, in terms of technological prowess," he said, adding that it was no longer the case.

NASA has lost ground to major rivals Russia and China, both of which have flown manned missions to space since the Columbia disaster, Griffin noted.

The US space program "has fallen behind," he told US lawmakers.

"Our shuttle is grounded. Two nations have flown people in space since we last did it," he said.

"We (at NASA) and America need to work hard to regain pour pre-eminence in space."

[NJ_gent]

"On one level, the best thing that can happen is to lose another shuttle"

How much money are the lives of the astronauts on that shuttle worth? How much cost savings would make their deaths 'the best thing' to happen?

"We should have weaned ourselves off of these 1970s relics a decade ago."

Agreed. Now, where does the money for the design and construction of the replacement vehicles come from? NASA gets about $12 Billion a year for all its operations. For some perspective, the DoD gets that much in a little over a week.

"What is it going to take to get the message across that it is time to go back to the blackboard and come up with something fresh?"

Something more than a shoe-string budget, apparently.

[NJ_gent]

"Unfortunately for the US taxpayer, NASA recieve most of the space dollars, and seem to have a problem getting off the ground."

NASA made it to the moon 40 years ago. Who else has done that in the history of the world and all mankind? That's right. Now that we've stripped their budget to a fraction of what it once was, complaints surface that they aren't getting enough done lately. I see....

[NJ_gent]

"The shuttle is beautiful, but it kills people and it's very costly."

Please identify one person in one place who has ever once stated that space travel is easy, cheap, and safe. Every man and woman who has ever been launched into space knows the risks involved. The guys on the ground do everything they can to make sure they come back safely, but there are just some things that will not be accounted for beforehand. For every one of the thousands of scenarios of things going wrong that NASA's scientists and engineers recognize and plan for, there are millions of other possibilities never considered. That we've had so few failures and so few fatalities thus far in our space endeavors goes to show what great individuals we have working on these projects.

[NJ_gent]

" Succeed within a limited budget and a limited time frame."

Utilizing how many technologies developed, pioneered, or advanced significantly by and/or for NASA and NASA projects?

oops.

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

"What Burt Rutan was the equivalent of the first Mercury flight."

Mercury couldn't fly three people into space twice a one week. I agree, Burt Rutan isn't on the same level as NASA, but on a "shoe string budget" it isn't a bad first space vehicle.

If Rutan had $100's of billions of dollars, I would be surprised if he would follow NASA's path. NASA is a bloated bureaucracy and has a hard time seeing past it's fat stomach.

Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

" Private enterprise funds itself. If we fund private enterprise then it wouldn't be private anymore, would it."

Good point:)

Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

" NASA made it to the moon 40 years ago."

Good grief. My mom was only 10 years old when they sent man to the moon. They can't get a man higher then 300 miles now. Tin cans falling around the earth... what happened to moon bases and spinning space hotels. Paging Mr. Clark

Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

Time for a wakeup call...

"For every one of the thousands of scenarios of things going wrong that NASA's scientists and engineers recognize and plan for, there are millions of other possibilities never considered."

We need a simplier designed spacecraft. One that doesn't have "millions" of things going wrong.

"...That we've had so few failures and so few fatalities thus far in our space endeavors goes to show what great individuals we have working on these projects."

Holy cow... snap out of it. 14 people have died on the shuttle in roughly 100 flights. That is not exceptable. I don't care if they except the risk. This jalopy is not the level of engineering I want representing my country.

Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com

[Doe Eyes]

Now, where does the money for the design and construction of the replacement vehicles come from?

I know, I know! We let the government fund it and we don't even have to pay for it. The deficit is not really a problem, and becides, it the next generations fault.

Do I get a Gold Star?

[NJ_gent]

"I know, I know! We let the government fund it and we don't even have to pay for it. The deficit is not really a problem, and becides, it the next generations fault."

How about we obliterate Medicare and Social Security, then take 5 percent of their annual expendatures and put it into NASA, then send the rest back to the taxpayers in tax breaks?

[NJ_gent]

"We need a simplier designed spacecraft. One that doesn't have "millions" of things going wrong."

It isn't the craft which has 'millions' of things going wrong, it's space. Wakeup call indeed - space is dangerous to living organisms, hence why all known life developed on a planet.

"14 people have died on the shuttle in roughly 100 flights."

2 crashes in 20 years for something far more difficult than anything human beings have ever done before doesn't sound bad to me.

"I don't care if they except the risk. This jalopy is not the level of engineering I want representing my country."

If you demand a perfect safety record for space travel, you'll never find it. You don't find it in airplanes, in buses, in cars, or on bicycles. Heck, you don't find it with people walking. Things happen, and that's life. This is important stuff, and it's been incredibly helpful to businesses in the US as well as individuals. NASA's done more work and had more success with this stuff than any other group of people, public or private, in the history of the planet. If that's not engineering to be proud of, then I don't know what is.

[NJ_gent]

"My mom was only 10 years old when they sent man to the moon."

Do you mean to downplay this achievement? Do we all agree that this was soley the work of NASA and the companies it had building new things for it?

"They can't get a man higher then 300 miles now."

Sure they can; but what percentage of the budget would you like to be spent on doing something that gets you nowhere? Do you want them to blow half their budget for the next 5 years going back to the moon? For what? What is it they can do there that they can't do in the shuttles' orbital ability? Have we run out of experiments and knowledge to discover within the orbital capacity of the space shuttle? Are we prepared to go back to 60s-style spending with NASA? No, and no; hence the continuation of the shuttle program.

"Tin cans falling around the earth"

'Tin cans' falling is all we've ever had, and likely all we'll ever have. Gravity is a free means of propulsion, and it takes up no room on spacecraft. Astronauts landed on the moon in a tin can, and they returned in a tin can.

"what happened to moon bases and spinning space hotels."

Are you ready to fund their engineering and construction? People complain about the pittance NASA gets now; if they want stuff like this, it's going to take spending that'll dwarf what we spent in the 60s corrected for inflation. Maybe, maybe if we completely cancelled Social Security, Medicare, and the DoD, and put all that money into NASA, we could get that stuff in the next 10 or 15 years.

[Doe Eyes]

How about we obliterate Medicare and Social Security

That's just a start. I'm in favor of getting rid of all government programs we aren't willing to pay taxes for.

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

"Are you ready to fund their engineering and construction? People complain about the pittance NASA gets now; if they want stuff like this, it's going to take spending that'll dwarf..."

NO! And I'm getting tried of funding NASA. The Shuttle is set to retire maybe within 15 flights, and I hope this ends the era of $500,000,000 launches. If we can't do it easier and cheaper, we should spend our money of development rather than microgravity experiments using the shuttle.

Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com

[NJ_gent]

"NO! And I'm getting tried of funding NASA."

Why? Because it's expensive (though pretty cheap relative to other things)? The military is expensive too (expensive relative to anything and everything else), but I rarely hear folks around here complaining that we're spending too much on that. Almost everyone here recognizes the value we get out of spending all that money on our military, and I think most understand just how valuable NASA has been to American businesses and citizens. Unfortunately, NASA hasn't had a lot of people working to help them advertise all the good they've done for the American people.

"If we can't do it easier and cheaper, we should spend our money of development rather than microgravity experiments using the shuttle."

The point is that we can do it easier and cheaper, but doing so requires a very expensive ground-up design and development of new and improved spacecraft. We could save lots of money and do a lot more work if NASA could get a couple years worth of 60s spending and a goal to work towards.

[theFIRMbss]

>President George W. Bush has set out an ambitious agenda for intergalactic exploration
>>Writers these days just make me sad

That's an odd mistake.
First, it's so bluntly stupid.
Secondly, months back,

I saw a TV
editorial by Neil
Cavuto [!] where Neil

supported NASA,
saying we should remember
all their successful

"intergalactic"
probes. NASA must have a dumb
PR flak who sends

press releases to
equally dumb "cheerleaders"
in the media

who just cut-and-paste
press releases into "news."
I imagine that

it's our tax dollars
funding "intergalactic"
press releases, too.

[theFIRMbss]

>The point is that we can do it easier and cheaper, but doing so requires a very expensive ground-up design ... We could save lots of money and do a lot more work if NASA could get a couple years worth of 60s spending ...

That's the rhetoric
every socialist invokes
to fund every scheme

that comes along to
siphon money from people
who earn the money

and distribute cash
to whomever is defined
as helping the mass

over the long run . . .
Right. And if we all ramp up
socialized health care

the mass will save cash
because we'll all be healthy.
The Left NEVER learns.

[jpsb]

"what happened to moon bases and spinning space hotels."

Cold war, read about it some time, the first priority was to firmly establish a strong presents in near earth orbit (high ground). Base on the moon would be of little value in a conflict on earth. However low earth orbit satilites or manned low earth orbit military missions would be. Do not think for one second that the USAF can't put a man or a weapon in space.

[theFIRMbss]

> Base on the moon would be of little value in a conflict on earth

[Question_Assumptions]

Mercury couldn't fly three people into space twice a one week. I agree, Burt Rutan isn't on the same level as NASA, but on a "shoe string budget" it isn't a bad first space vehicle.

My point in comparing it with the first Mercury flight is that the first Mercury fligth was not orbital -- it was up and down. Going orbital is a much bigger deal than getting out of the atmosphere. No, it's not a bad first effort but it still has a long way to go before he could visit the space station or go to the Moon.

If Rutan had $100's of billions of dollars, I would be surprised if he would follow NASA's path. NASA is a bloated bureaucracy and has a hard time seeing past it's fat stomach.

Having worked for small companies that became big companies, a state government, and a large corporation, the bloated bureaucracy is as much a problem with size as anything else, so I wouldn't be surprised. Small companies can be directly managed and hiring can be carefully controlled. Once the company got large enough that Rutan didn't have direct input in who gets hired and what people were doing, he'd be on the road to a bloated bureaucracy. It's a variation on the "mythical man-month" problem. The more people you add to a task, the more time you have to waste corrdinating them all to the point where each new person added to the task adds very little extra net work.